Zizek defends Ilyenkov's dialectical materialism

what I'm saying is you're a retard for thinking the two are diametrically opposed. if material conditions were literally the ONLY thing effecting class consciousness, we'd have had a revolution 10 fucking years ago.
but we didn't. why? because people aren't class conscious. to achieve real change we need a proper deconstruction of the ontological subject and how it interacts with its own (and other peoples) perceptions, which is what philosophers like Zizek and their predecessors are trying to do.
empirically, relying on material conditions to dictate everything is a pipe dream. we need to be asking ourselves important questions about our dialectical progression throughout the course of history. shit like why Haiti had a slave revolution but America had a civil war. or why France officially abolish religious Monarchy but England still hasn't. if you think this shit doesn't matter you're a fucking retard.
and if you're still not convinced, ask yourself what is the purpose of fighting idpol on the left then at all, if material conditions are the dictators of everything. if you think even THAT doesn't matter then you are severely, sorely misguided.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (333x500, 133.51K)

Ilynekov seems to parallel Greek philosophy in very odd ways, from the Stoic (and possibly Heraclitean) idea of ekpyrosis, to the universe coming together through love and coming apart by strife in endless cycles, like Empedocles.

...

epic strawman. hope to see it in your next angry tweet.

I was wondering why you typed like you were still in school.

Attached: (you).png (658x901, 64.42K)

Holy fuck y'all are retarded. Nice lack of reading comprehension. Materialism is basically that there isn't some ephemeral world beyond this material one - and thus we should focus on actual historical and contemporary events rather then jacking ourselfs off with ahistorical musings of upper class philosophers. I made no comments about "ideas are bad" or anything of the sort. What I was saying is that Ilyenkov is literally an idealist of the sort that Marx fought against, and just because he was a soviet and you guys want to think you're smart cause Zizek the contradictory sniff man said he was cool.

Here's what Ilyenkov believes:

He literally believes that ideas take on their own reality and are, I quote," a necessary part of the development of the entire reality". Which means he believes fucking abstract ideas exist in nature on their own, without any linkage to historical or social relations which they develop out of. This is in clear contradiction to Marx's materialism. To quote Marx once again to show how Marx is clearly against this nonsense:
Just like there's no absolute spirit guiding the progression of mankind, there are also no ahistorical ideas floating in the universe that have a life of their own.

Anal Water did a podcast about this:
youtube.com/watch?v=QC2MHsd-jq4&t=12s

Don't post this guy on here. He's a literal slimeball who used to pimp his Hegelian bullshit via manipulation tactics on this board for months. He deserves to be forgotten ASAP.

Where does he defend it?

confirmed for not having read the article

Confirmed for not having read the article#2.

Why are anti-zizek fags illiterate?

...

Amazing how people will shit on zizek accusing him of arguing the opposite of what he argues because not only do they not bother to read the article, they can't even parse the first post in the thread. Fucking pathetic.

Zizek is the literal definition of a meme philosopher.

is that the only thing you're programmed to respond with?

Assholes like this guy just use big fancy words which don't really have much meaning to seem really smart.
"Within this pre-modern space of a complete and self-regulating cosmos, radical negativity can only appear as total self-destruction. The way out of this deadlock is to abandon the starting point and to admit that there is no reality as a self-regulated Whole, that reality is in itself cracked, incomplete, non-all, traversed by radical antagonism."

Complete and utter garbage. However, I do wanna hear how the enlightened people who can understand Zizek explain this to me in regular people language.

There really is nothing worthwhile to say when it comes to the noseman.

Zizek is an oracle, his mind has been overloaded by every single ideology and philosophy, he now is not capable of speaking coherently, and must be interpreted.

The incompleteness of reality is a Lacanian concept that's fundamental to Zizek's ouvre.

Fuck off dude, Ilyenkov was ML, there is nothing idealist about him, watch Cockshott's videos about materialism or read Joseph Dietzgen to understand that materialism doesn't end with Marx and Engels. Also, Hegel's method doesn't equal his content or beliefs.

I do admit though, Zizek is loosing his mind. He sounds like what normies think le smart philosophers sound like (which is not how they sound like, always remember that philosophers want their stuff to be read, they don't deliberately write in hieroglyphs. Even Ilyenkov, who is reviewing here, didn't write like that. His stuff is actually pretty readible.

The problem with Zizek is that he needs to fucking law down the coke, it is ruining him

This is also true.

I think that's an ungenerous reading. He could be saying that thoughts are the highest expression of the underlying material reality rather than that thoughts are by themselves reality per se, as in idealism. It's still very Hegelian, but, then again, all Marxists are necessarily influenced by Hegel to some extent, even if only through Marx and Engels.

He uses big long words that are hard to read and hurt my head

This.

I don’t see what’s so complicated about this. He’s basically just justifying subject-oriented ontology by asserting that our perception of reality is innately incomplete.

Anal Water was an insecure little prick who went apeshit on anyone who wasn't following his hegelian lead. I remember when he used to spam this board debating others who BTFO'd him multiple times.

lmao, this is easy to translate to normie.

In the pre-modern worldview the world is wholesome and full. Any antagonism is seen as a self-destruction. Think of how conservative people think of leftists as people who divide society. They don't see the antagonisms within society that pre-exist articulation by leftists. They see the leftist project as a project of self-annihilation. (The way out of this deadlock) is to abandon the premise that the world was ever full and wholesome, that it was always riven with antagonisms. This doesn't just apply to class society, this applies to everything, the very idea that reality can be somehow grasped fully in a wholesome way.

...

Okay.

that's not what I fucking said you retard

Just wanted to say Einstein never actually said that.

I know but it's still correct.

Doing something over and over with varying success seems like determination but ok.

then you are the other kind of retard that thinks materialism = determinism

where are you coming up with these conclusions? I literally said the opposite.
what determines our future is combination of idealist dialectics and materialism.